03/14/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR3 | |
| HB75 | |
| HB153 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2005
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Relating to renewable energy resource development.
- MOVED HCR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to promoting and preserving sport hunting in
the state."
- MOVED CSHB 75 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to regulation of the discharge of pollutants
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 3
SHORT TITLE: RENEWABLE ENERGY ALASKA PROJECT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS
02/22/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/05 (H) L&C, RES
03/02/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/02/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/02/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/03/05 (H) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
03/03/05 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LEDOUX, ANDERSON;
03/03/05 (H) NR: ROKEBERG
03/14/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 75
SHORT TITLE: SPORT HUNTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY
01/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/05 (H) RES, FIN
03/14/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: POLLUTION DISCHARGE & WASTE TRMT/DISPOSAL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/16/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/05 (H) RES, FIN
03/14/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 3 on behalf of Representative
Ramras, Sponsor.
CHRIS ROSE, Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HCR 3.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Mike Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 75 on behalf of Representative
Kelly, Sponsor
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 75.
DAVE BACHRACH
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 75.
JENNIFER YUHAS, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 75.
TOM SCARBOROUGH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 75.
SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 75.
KURT FREDRIKSSON, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
DAN EASTON, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the background and consequences of
HB 153.
ROBERT ROBICHAUD, Manager
Wastewater Permit Unit
Northwest Region
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 153.
DICK COOSE
Concerned Alaskans for Resource and Environment
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
DAVID STONE, Vice President
Alaska Miners Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
RICH HEIG, General Manager
Greens Creek Mining Company
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
EARL HUBBARD, Vice President
Trident Seafoods
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
LOIS EPSTEIN, Senior Engineer
Cook Inlet Keeper
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director
Alaska Forest Association
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 153.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02:51 PM. Representatives
Crawford, Samuels, Seaton, Olson, Ramras, Gatto, and Elkins were
present at the call to order. Representative LeDoux arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HCR 3-RENEWABLE ENERGY ALASKA PROJECT
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Relating to renewable
energy resource development.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HCR 3, which recognizes that Alaska
needs to move forward with its energy needs. Alternative energy
is the wave of the future, he said, and wind, hydrogen,
geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric, and tidal energy are being
considered around the world, and Alaska has the opportunity to
be out front in their production. HCR 3 recognizes this and
urges the governor to work on the development of alternative
energy. Mr. Pound highlighted that alternate sources of energy
are important for rural areas. He said that Bethel is
considering wind generation and Kotzebue has some wind turbines,
which can save money on Alaska's subsidized Power Cost
Equalization program.
1:04:26 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP),
said REAP is a statewide coalition of utility companies,
environmental groups, consumer groups, businesses, and Native
groups who would like to see the increased production of
renewable energy in Alaska. He urged the panel to move HCR 3.
"We have an opportunity to be a leader in this field," he said.
He added that Alaska has resources that other states and nations
would give a lot for: wind, geothermal, and biofuel sources.
1:06:47 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said he drove a hydrogen-powered car while
attending the Energy Council, and the exhaust was water vapor.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is pleased that tidal power is in
HCR 3.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said Alaska can be a leader in not only
producing fossil fuel energy but also alternative sources.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HCR 3, labeled 24-
LS0648\G, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
1:09:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:09 p.m. to 1:14 p.m.
1:14:08 PM
HB 75-SPORT HUNTING
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 75 "An Act relating to promoting and
preserving sport hunting in the state."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt CSHB 75, labeled 24-LS0359\G,
Utermohle, 2/24/05, as a work draft. Hearing no objection, it
was so ordered.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, said there are only two substantial changes between
the original HB 75 and the committee substitute (CS). The bill
now includes trapping as a referenced activity, and the term
"sport" was removed.
1:16:50 PM
MR. HILYARD said the bill was drafted from language in a
Michigan bill. Montana and Minnesota adopted similar language,
he said, and he believes the language in HB 75 is consistent
with Article 8, Section 4 of the Alaska State Constitution,
which addresses sustained yield principles.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what impact this legislation will
have on the commissioner's job.
MR. HILYARD deferred to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G).
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wanted to know the sponsor's
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the language will not cause extra work
but will assist ADF&G and "make life easier for them, because it
makes it very clear what we are about." He added that
organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) "will continue to hammer away." He said this
bill will "make it clear that this is about what we have been as
a people, what we are now, and what we're likely to be in the
future."
DAVE BACHRACH, Homer, said HB 75 gives preference to one user
group for a common resource, and he would like to know what the
impact would be on wildlife viewing and tourism. Does hunting
take priority? he asked.
JENNIFER YUHAS, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, said
her group supports the CS. She said that the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) "should no longer be legally gagged"
from promoting the merits of hunting. "The public as well as
our decision-makers have the right to hear from our biologists
and managers when making decisions that will affect their
ability to manage," she said. She added, regarding hunting
having priority over wildlife viewing, "These uses are subject
to preference among users, and that is part of what the
legislature's job is."
1:24:04 PM
TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks, said he supports HB 75.
SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G), said from ADF&G's stand point, the bill is not
necessary, and it is good to eliminate the word "sport." She
suggested including fisheries, because the commissioner is
required to promote hunting and fishing resources. She said the
bill could be an important tool for the commissioner on ballot
initiatives. She said by including hunting, trapping and
fishing, "that would be good from a department standpoint
because it covers everything the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game both manages, preserves and promotes."
1:27:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how the language directs the
commissioner's decisions. Will this mean the commissioner's job
is to take the McNeil River Bear Sanctuary and promote hunting
and trapping instead of bear viewing?
SARAH GILBERTSON, Legislative Liaison, "My guess would be, as I
mentioned before, the commissioner and the department, we feel
that we already do this. We feel that we do this not only for
hunting, trapping, but also for fishing. So this is really a
policy call for [the legislature] to put it in the functions of
the commissioner. We feel that both the commissioner and the
division already does this--wildlife conservation, but it's a
policy call from your end to actually define it and put it in
the commissioner's functions, but relative to McNeil, those
decisions are currently made by the Board of Game, and as you
know they just considered a proposal on that subject. So I
don't know how, even if this were passed, that the commissioner
could step in to change what's going on there. That's under the
purview of the Board of Game."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this language gives the commissioner
a new duty, and "as I read it, in every instance, he shall, in
conjunction with the Board of Game, promote hunting and
trapping, and I am wondering if this gives the absolute
direction that the commissioner must follow this path and
eliminates the wildlife viewing option."
SARAH GILBERTSON said she would like to find out from the
Department of Law.
KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, said he signed on to testify in
support of the CS, but he will answer the question. He said:
The bill would only add to the duties of the
commissioner, it doesn't remove any of the existing
duties of the commissioner or the department, and it
doesn't purport to trump any of the existing duties.
The department currently has specific statutory duties
as to, for example, the McNeil Sanctuary and refuge to
maintain those, to maintain the habitat, to maintain
the bear populations, etcetera, and the commissioner
also currently has duties in the very statute that you
are amending to manage, protect, maintain, improve,
and extend the fish, game and aquatic plant resources
of the state in the interest of the economy and
general well-being of the state. So this just adds a
duty to preserve and promote hunting and trapping now.
It doesn't trump any of those other things.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Saxby were advising the Board
of Game or the commissioner with this new duty in statute, and a
request comes to the board to open hunting within the McNeil
River Sanctuary, would the commissioner be fully able to say
that he disagrees with promoting hunting in this area, and
recommend that it remain closed to hunting.
MR. SAXBY said, "As to McNeil, [the commissioner] will still be
free to do that."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Ms. Gilbertson says the
commissioner can already do what the bill says.
MS. GILBERTSON said preserving and promoting hunting, fishing,
and trapping is what ADF&G does all the time. The bill's
language adds it to the functions of the commissioner. In the
commissioner's daily actions, he will have to have this on his
mind. "But, I think as Kevin Saxby was just saying, with
respect to Paul Seaton's question, is that the commissioner--
doesn't mean that...McNeil bear viewing, for instance, will go
away." It gives another tool because the commissioner is wary
of weighing in on ballot measures.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "So this is another tool to weigh
in on ballot measures?"
MS. GILBERTSON said, "That is my take on it."
MR. SAXBY said he is defending litigation that challenges the
state's predator control program:
The opponents of predator control have made a huge
issue, and attempted to really exploit the idea that
this is being done for, quote, sport-hunting purposes,
unquote. And so it has really been helpful to remove
the term "sport." That creates complications under
the airborne hunting act, for example, it creates a
number of complications if the legislature would ever
categorize Alaskan hunters as sport hunters. Every
statement that we have in the statutes that puts a
duty on the commissioner or the department to promote
consumptive uses ends up being helpful when we have
challenges to those consumptive uses. And likewise it
would be helpful in the future to have a statement
like that about fishing, anticipating that at some
point in the future we're going to be facing a
challenge to consumptive use of some or all fish
probably.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the governor can't deliver a
statement regarding "one of those outside ballot initiatives,"
without this legislation.
MR. SAXBY said state funds can't be spent to influence an
election. If the state has a mandatory duty to promote hunting
activities, "we will at least be able to make, I think the
department will be able to make some kinds of statements that
effectively do that."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said if that is what we want to do maybe
we should address it directly in the state's election laws.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said, "The primary reason for bringing this
bill forward is that there is a laundry list of attacks being
made, and...PETA is the type of organization lining them up and
delivering them." This tool permits one to stand up and say
that hunting, fishing and trapping is who we are and is
important to us.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like the committee to get a
legal opinion that this duty does not require the commissioner
to recommend hunting in an area such as McNeil River.
MR. SAXBY said he will forward the request and put it in motion.
1:42:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he supports adding fishing to the
bill.
1:43:47 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved Amendment 1, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Delete line 11-12 and insert:
(3) in conjunction with the Board of Fisheries
and Board of Game, promote fishing, hunting, and
trapping, and preserve the heritage of fishing,
hunting, and trapping in the state.
New Sec 2--AS 16.05.251 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) In conjunction with the commissioner, the Board of
Fisheries shall promote fishing and preserve the
heritage of fishing in the state.
New Sec. 3--AS 16.05.255 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(k) In conjunction with the commissioner, the Board of
Game shall promote hunting and trapping and preserve
the heritage of hunting and trapping in the sate.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS proposed to move conceptual Amendment 2 to
change the title of HB 75 to insert the word fishing wherever
appropriate. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 2
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concerned about the title being
"really broad" and wants to move conceptual Amendment 3 to
clarify that the act refers to the duties of the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the duties of the Board of Game are
included.
MR. SAXBY said he needs to understand the intent. A statutory
duty to the commissioner to promote hunting, fishing and
trapping is in one section. Another section would need to be
addressed for the Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that it makes sense to have the
commissioner and the boards of fish and game mentioned in the
title, but he wants it more specific. He moved conceptual
Amendment 3 which would read something like:
An act related to the duties of the commissioner, the
Board of Fisheries, and the Board of Game, to promote
and preserve hunting, trapping and fishing.
1:49:11 PM
There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
1:50:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to report HB 75 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the committee will get the
legal opinion on McNeil River, and it will follow the bill.
Hearing no objection, CSHB 75(RES) was passed out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
1:51:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
1:56:29 PM
HB 153-POLLUTION DISCHARGE & WASTE TRMT/DISPOSAL
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 153 "An Act relating to regulation of the
discharge of pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System; and providing for an effective date."
KURT FREDRIKSSON, Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), provided the committee with
the following testimony [original punctuation provided]:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am pleased
to testify today in support of House Bill 153,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Assumption. My testimony will focus on why
Governor Murkowski and I believe passage of HB 153
will strengthen the ability of Alaskans to protect the
State's water resources and build a strong economy.
With me today is Dan Easton, Director of the
Department's Division of Water to provide you with the
details of how this bill was developed.
Since the creation of the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) in 1971, our duties have been
clearly and succinctly spelled out by the legislature
to adopt and enforce regulations which set standards
for the prevention and abatement of all water, land
and air pollution. DEC fulfills these State
obligations consistent with national pollution control
programs authorized under the Clean Air and Clean
Water Acts. These federal and state laws establish a
two-tiered approach consisting of national uniform
environmental quality goals and pollution control
strategies tailored to each state's unique
circumstances.
DEC currently exercises all the authorities granted by
the Alaska legislature as well as the United States
Congress to protect Alaska's air quality and drinking
water. The same is not true for protecting the quality
of Alaska's surface water. The federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is the water authority in
Alaska. Alaska, like four other states, has allowed
wastewater-permitting authority to remain with
the federal government.
EPA makes the wastewater permitting rules in Alaska.
EPA decides what's important and what's not. EPA
decides the permit review timeframes. EPA decides what
goes into the permits and who gets inspected. EPA
decides how Alaska's water quality standards will be
applied to specific discharges. EPA sets Alaska's
water quality priorities.
As you know, Governor Murkowski is committed to permit
streamlining that eliminates duplicative, unnecessary
procedures which invite litigation and add time and
cost… without additional environmental protection.
Governor Murkowski is committed to permit streamlining
that aligns our regulatory requirements with real
Alaska conditions and focuses on the real risks to
Alaska's water quality.
1:59:29 PM
DEC has made significant progress in streamlining its
permit programs, but when it comes to wastewater
permitting, we cannot fix what we don't control.
Alaska has never pursued the opportunity provided by
the federal Clean Water Act to shape the NPDES water
pollution control permit program to fit Alaska's
unique circumstances. HB 153 would allow DEC to
develop a comprehensive water quality protection
program where all program components, from legislative
budgeting and oversight to fieldwork and enforcement,
are conducted here in the state, where Alaskans can
shape solutions to fit Alaska's challenges. Alaskans
are capable of protecting our water resources.
A state permit program will be based on Alaska's
priorities--not national priorities that are "one-
size-fits-all". DEC's permit priorities, level of
effort and performance measures would be subject to
annual review and approval by Alaskans through their
elected officials in the state Legislature.
A state run program will place permit decision makers
closer to the Alaskan public and regulated permit
holders. No longer will permits be written and
enforced by federal staff unfamiliar with Alaska's
unique environment.
The State run permit program won't be free. When EPA
issues permits in Alaska the costs are borne by the
U.S. taxpayer. A state permit program will shift
authority and responsibility to the state, but it will
also shift some of the costs to permit holders and the
State.
Federal programs do not adapt easily to Alaska.
National goals do not always address our greatest
needs. Alaska's elected representatives have made
clear our commitment to environmental protection and
our responsibility to develop our resources for the
wellbeing of all Alaskans. If we are to realize the
promise of resource development, we must accept
responsibility for managing our water resources. That
means assuming primacy for the NPDES program.
With primacy there will be no rollback of
environmental protection; anyone who supports primacy
on that basis will be disappointed.
NPDES primacy means:
· A faster, more effective program for protecting our
water resources.
· Alaskan industries and communities working with
Alaskan permitters on permits that reflect our
priorities and unique conditions - permits that make
sense for Alaska.
· Less emphasis on cumbersome process and more
emphasis on results.
· Less emphasis on one-size-fits-all permits and more
emphasis on specific risks to Alaska's environment.
· Permitting accountability - accountability to
Alaska's elected officials and the public.
It is time for Alaskans to take responsibility for
protecting Alaska's environment. To do otherwise means
continuing the status quo. The status quo is
unacceptable.
DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, said HB 153 is the result of years
of effort. He said DEC released a report in 2004 which
recommended that the state seek primacy and would need $4.8
million and 43 employees to run the program. Last year HB 546
was passed, which directed the state to apply for partial NPDES
primacy for the timber sector and created a full-time position.
EPA told the state that partial primacy would be problematic.
So DEC executed a work-share agreement that makes DEC the lead
in developing the next general permit for log transfer
facilities, but the permit is controlled by EPA. Mr. Easton
said an advisory work group was formed in 2004 with the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association, Alaska Forest Association, Alaska
Miners Association, Associated General Contractors of Alaska,
Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Alaska Water and
Wastewater Management Association, and Alaska Native Tribal
Health Consortium. The meetings were open to the public, he
added. The work group proceedings and findings were reported in
January 2005. Support for state primacy varied between groups,
he said, and certain sectors saw a benefit in state primacy, and
others saw less benefit but would not object to the state
pursuing primacy.
2:06:15 PM
MR. EASTON said there is a $1.5 million fiscal note with HB 153.
The department's budget includes $3.3 million and 30 staff that
are already devoted to NPDES activities. He said a total of 43
positions are required for the work, so DEC would need 13 new
positions. Costs would be divided between state general funds,
federal grant money, and permit fee receipts.
2:07:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if those 30 employees only work on
NPDES permits, and if the state will actually need more
employees.
MR. EASTON answered that DEC staff deal with water quality
standards, issue state permits, and inspect some NPDES
facilities. They won't change what they are doing, he said.
2:09:52 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said he had problems contacting DEC last week,
and he asked how much public input there has been on HB 153.
MR. FREDRIKSSON said, "We are here today after a series of
events and at least two legislative sessions. There's been
quite a bit of input in development of the original NPDES
assumption study that was requested by the legislature, there's
quite a bit of public input through the legislative process
during those last two years, and then there was quite a bit of
involvement, as Dan mentioned, in the six meetings that were
held here last fall." But for this current proposal, "the
public testimony here will be the first testimony on this actual
HB 153."
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said he hasn't been here in the last two
sessions, "so when you say that SB 326 is the culmination of a
great deal of public input, can you outline that for me?"
MR. EASTON said the process started with SB 326 asking DEC to
estimate the cost and benefits of the state assuming primacy.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if DEC solicited opinions in the
communities where people may be affected.
MR. EASTON said DEC had the work group but no public hearings.
The meetings were open to the public, however.
MR. FREDRIKSSON added that most communities are required to have
NPDES permits as part of their wastewater discharge, and the
work groups included large and small municipality
representatives. There has been a wide distribution of the
information on the SB 326 report, he said, and information has
been available on DEC's web page.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if EPA will sign off on this.
MR. FREDRIKSSON said this is an application process. HB 153
will give DEC the legislative approval to go forward. There are
only four other states that have not received primacy, and he
assumes that DEC can design a program that EPA will approve.
MR. EASTON said the bill calls for an application to be
submitted to the EPA by June 2006, and he expects it will take
the EPA one year to approve the application.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if the state will get any federal money.
MR. EASTON said no.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the financial advantages are for
businesses and other Alaskans.
MR. EASTON said it varies. The larger and more complex the
permits, the more the savings. The working group took a
theoretical mine the size of the Pogo mine, and it clearly
demonstrated that by shaving six months off of a permit process,
the advantage can be millions of dollars.
2:17:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked why timber-related activities are
deleted.
MR. EASTON said HB 546 already gave DEC primacy for the timber
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that approval happens in 2007, but
the fiscal note includes $900,000 in 2006.
2:19:26 PM
MR. EASTON said the money is to prepare the application, write
regulations, and prepare the data systems for primacy.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if any boroughs or municipalities
have an opinion on HB 153.
MR. EASTON said he will encourage them to let the committee know
how they feel.
2:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what difference there has been for
the timber industry since HB 546.
MR. EASTON said that process has barely started and it will be a
year before the draft permit is in place. It will make a
significant difference, he believed. A log transfer facility
today has to get three separate permits for depositing bark,
storm water, and sewage. DEC will bundle the permits in one
application, which will save time and duplication.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how many EPA staff are working on
Alaska permits.
ROBERT ROBICHAUD, Manager, Wastewater Permit Unit, Northwest
Region, Environmental Protection Agency, said 20 staff are
assigned to some facet of the NPDES program. It is not just
writing permits, he said, but also EPA has inspectors,
enforcement and compliance staff, attorneys, and laboratory
technicians. Permit writing for Alaska costs about $1.4 million
in direct costs without overhead.
2:24:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that EPA has 20 staff and Alaska
wants 13, which may create permitting delays.
MR. EASTON said currently there are a total of 51 DEC and EPA
NPDES staff, and because of the efficiency of state primacy, DEC
envisions it will need a total 43 staff.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked about hurting the permitting process if
positions are cut in tight budget years.
MR. FREDRIKSSON said DEC has reduced its budget in the past few
years, but it has built up staff and resources for DEC's core
permit programs. This is the forum, he said, for the state to
determine its spending priorities.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said Alaska has an administration that is
friendly with resource development. "If in the future we have
an administration that's less friendly to mineral resource
development, don't we run the risk of actually necking down the
process by having the State of Alaska the only gate keeper?"
MR. EASTON said there is no question about that, and the risk is
that the program gets reduced to where EPA takes it back.
MR. FREDRIKSSON said the public is another element. If the
public becomes complacent, the dynamics change, he said. But he
is fairly confident the public will keep a watchful eye.
MR. EASTON said no state has ever relinquished primacy.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the public has not been complacent on
water quality regulations. DEC proposed to allow pollution
mixing zones in spawning streams, and the public has been
universally opposed to that and yet DEC has not withdrawn those
proposals. The finance subcommittee finally said 'We disagree
with the way you are going whether you call this streamlining or
whatever in ignoring the public comment and all the comments
from the legislature.' Representative Seaton said, "So we have
a situation...when the public is aware and commenting, it seems
to be ignored by the agency. So I am concerned about giving
primacy in this particular area because this is exactly the area
where numerous legislators have weighed in on this and seems to
have been ignored."
MR. FREDRIKSSON said both the executive branch and the
legislative branch operate through a very public process. "We
take public input, we consider that public input, and then we
take actions."
DICK COOSE, Ketchikan, said he represents Concerned Alaskans for
Resource and Environment, a non-profit group to promote access
to resources by business. He urges support of HB 153, "this is
only one of the several programs under which the federal
government continues to treat the State of Alaska like a
territory, and the state needs to control its own future."
2:32:35 PM
MR. COOSE said DEC uses better science and works better with
people than EPA--"EPA appears to be here to say no or simply
delay, and the business or the activity goes away." He said the
laws won't be overlooked by the state. He added that Ketchikan
fish processors have EPA permits to handle fish wastes, and
those wastes simply pile up and do not decompose. No science
supported the grinding of fish that EPA requires, and it does
not work, he said. Resources are Alaska's wealth. Funding for
DEC is a pittance of the total state budget, and DEC is key to
managing resources and needs sufficient funding, he concluded.
2:35:35 PM
DAVID STONE, Vice President, Alaska Miners Association, said he
supports HB 153. The mining industry has discussed primacy and
now is convinced it is in Alaska's best interest. Mr. Stone
referenced an article written in the Alaska Miners Association
monthly newsletter. He said federal control has the problem of
non-Alaska factors influencing permit decisions, like court
cases in other parts of the country. Local Alaska conditions,
needs, and the merits of a particular permit are not EPA's
primary consideration, but rather how the decision on an Alaska
permit may affect some other part of the country, he said. This
approach by EPA adds delays and may add costs and problems for
the permittee. He said he understands that permit fees will go
up.
2:38:13 PM
RICH HEIG, General Manager, Greens Creek Mining Company, said he
is the past president of the Council of Alaska Producers, and
the council was part of DEC's task force. He supports the
comments of Commissioner Fredriksson. "We believe Alaska can
manage Alaska's waters more efficiently, more timely," he said,
and DEC is more familiar with the regulated community and the
public, and primacy can be done in an environmentally
responsible manner.
2:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there were public members on the
work group.
MR. HEIG said he did not think so.
MR. EASTON said the work group members were all permittees, but
the meetings were open to the public.
2:40:56 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked what other states did not have primacy.
MR. EASTON said Idaho, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked if Ernesta Ballard was the director
of Region 10.
MR. FREDRIKSSON said that Ms. Ballard was EPA's region 10
administrator, and she was the commissioner of DEC when the
report was submitted to the legislature.
2:42:05 PM
EARL HUBBARD, Vice President, Trident Seafoods, said Trident is
involved in all aspects of the Alaska fishing industry; "We
catch, we process, we market all commercial seafood products."
He said he is happy to offer support for HB 153. He noted that
all fisheries depend on water quality, including the image of
water quality, and any environmental threat is a concern to
Trident. Water quality is Alaskan's most valuable asset so the
state should take the lead role in protective programs, "in
balance with EPA, which is an agency that is not going
anywhere," which is good, he said. Primacy gives greater
control and state assets will be best protected. It is an
integral opportunity which lends due deference to the state, he
said, and timeliness, efficiency, oversight, and economy will
improve. EPA is spread thin with limited staff.
2:48:43 PM
MR. HUBBARD said DEC is more able than ever to administer the
program in an effective way. Mr. Easton and Mr. Fredriksson
make a good leadership team. He concluded that primacy is good
for water quality and good for business.
2:49:51 PM
LOIS EPSTEIN, Senior Engineer, Cook Inlet Keeper, Anchorage,
provided the following testimony to the committee [original
punctuation provided]:
Good afternoon. My name is Lois Epstein and I am an
Alaska-licensed engineer with Cook Inlet Keeper in
Anchorage. Cook Inlet Keeper is a nonprofit,
membership organization dedicated to protecting the
Cook Inlet watershed and the life it sustains. I have
worked on safety and environmental issues for over 20
years for two private consultants, the U.S. EPA,
Environmental Defense in Washington, DC, and Cook
Inlet Keeper. Additionally, I have served on several
multi- stakeholder federal advisory committees, and
currently serve on an advisory committee appointed by
U.S. DOT Secretary Mineta that includes former Alaska
House and Senate member Drue Pearce. HB 153 accurately
reflects the wish- list from the industry members of
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
workgroup studying "National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Primacy," commonly
understood as EPA giving the state of Alaska the
authority to issue wastewater discharge permits under
the federal Clean Water Act. Because Tribes and public
interest organizations were excluded from the
workgroup, our concerns were never seriously addressed
and their solutions were not included in HB 153.
Additionally, though DEC may not emphasize this fact
to the legislature, the workgroup member representing
municipal wastewater treatment plants opposes the
state's bid for NPDES primacy. And, just to be clear,
there has been no public input into HB 153 to date.
With this background - and bearing in mind that EPA
might have similar concerns and may not approve the
state's application for primacy unless the legislature
amends the bill and the state amends the Fiscal Note -
Cook Inlet Keeper offers the following substantive
issues requiring amendments and further information-
gathering. Our primary concerns are: 1. The high
governmental cost of the permitting program, which
only will grow as the state's industrial growth
increases. 2. Ensuring a high-quality permitting
program to protect Alaska's salmon and other fish. 3.
Ensuring governmental accountability to Tribes and the
public.
High Cost of the Permitting Program
According to HB 153's Fiscal Note, the legislature
will need to appropriate, at a minimum, $1.5 million
each year to DEC to support the bigger state
government required to manage this complex program.
Because workgroup members insisted on a limit to
permit fees of slightly more than 15% of program costs
(compared to the 57% of program costs paid by
permittees in Oregon and the 75-80% paid in
Washington), the increased costs will come from other
state initiatives such as education or road
maintenance. Should industrial growth occur in Alaska,
the legislature will need to increase the annual
appropriation beyond $1.5 million to cover the
approximately 85% of the program not funded by permit
fees. If the growth occurs among businesses with less
than 20 employees, annual appropriation needs will be
even higher given cost recovery constraints for the
program, i.e., governmental travel will not be
recovered from small businesses. In the future, DEC
will not get any more federal funding for the program
than currently since the state receives the maximum
amount allowed for administering its Clean Water Act
programs. While federal funding is projected to
continue at the current level, the federal budget
process in future years may decrease this amount,
resulting in additional costs to the state. If the
legislature fails to fund the program adequately in
the future, it is likely that permit issuance would be
slowed and permit errors may occur. Since there is
virtually no chance that EPA will take back the
permitting program once it has been given to the
state, permittees will suffer due to insufficient
general fund resources. The workgroup's report states
that permit fees "are expected to increase by a factor
of 1.8…a substantial increase," including increases to
municipal permit fees. Thus, both state and local
costs will increase significantly should the state
obtain NPDES primacy.
Keeping Fish Healthy
Fiscal Note cost estimates arguably are low because
proposed DEC staffing levels are insufficient to
implement the program adequately. If the program is
not carried out with sufficient technical and
enforcement staff, water quality and fish habitat will
decline. Currently, a total of 51 full-time equivalent
(FTE) employees from EPA and DEC carry out the
permitting program. DEC estimates reduce this number
to 43 FTE, an overall reduction of 16% that includes a
38% reduction in program development staff (e.g.,
water quality standards staff), a 28% reduction in
permitting staff, and a 16% reduction in compliance
and enforcement staff. Though DEC may state that its
proposed staff numbers are in-line with that of other
states, its own information shows that to be untrue.
For example, the state of Alaska expects to spend only
52% of the resources that Washington state spends per
permit. Since DEC has produced essentially no evidence
to date on how it can maintain an adequate permitting
program with severe staff reductions, we request that
the legislature obtain additional, detailed
information from DEC on the adequacy of its staffing
estimates - especially for technical and enforcement
staff - and the likelihood of EPA approving the
permitting program with serious staff reductions in a
state with numerous, large industrial operations.
2:55:14 PM
Additionally, Cook Inlet Keeper and industry members
of the workgroup share a concern about the limited
technical expertise at DEC and the likely use of
consultants to develop permits. Problems with the use
of consultants include potential conflicts of interest
and the lack of longterm DEC staff experience with
particular industries, which can result in technical
deficiencies and costly staff inefficiencies. Though
conflicts of interest were discussed in the workgroup,
Section 4(h)(4) needs to be amended to specifically
prevent conflicts of interest for DEC consultants.
Cook Inlet Keeper also is concerned that required
federal reviews, such as with expert federal
biologists on essential fish habitat, will be
eliminated by the state assuming NPDES primacy.
Governmental Accountability
NPDES primacy will eliminate federal government-to-
government consultations with Tribes and various
analyses that the public currently participates in
which are required by federal statutes to ensure a
healthy environment. Tribal government-to-government
consultations have numerous benefits which can be
better described by tribal members than by me, and I
urge the legislature to include Tribes in its primacy
deliberations (unlike the DEC workgroup). Sections
4(h)(2) and 4(h)(3) of HB 153 enable industry
permittees to review draft and final permits before
public issuance, giving industry permittees excessive
and unfair influence over permits. EPA may disallow
such unbalanced treatment. The legislature needs to
remove these sections from the bill. Finally,
legislators need to amend Section 1(b)(2) so DEC's
NPDES workgroup is representative of all stakeholders.
This section currently extends the mandate of the
undemocratic and unrepresentative workgroup which
crafted this bill's contents. Thank you very much for
your attention to these concerns. NPDES primacy is a
major undertaking for DEC, with serious fiscal, fish,
and governmental accountability implications. Cook
Inlet Keeper urges the legislature not to make costly
programmatic changes that are of questionable value to
permittees and troubling for Tribes and the public.
This is a case where an important engineering saying
applies - if it works, don't fix it.
2:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Epstein if she requested to
become a member of the workgroup.
MS. EPSTEIN said yes.
2:58:39 PM
OWEN GRAHAM, Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association, said
he was on the working group and he supports HB 153. He said
there shouldn't be a concern about the makeup of the working
group because there were people from the communities in
attendance who could speak up whenever they wanted. The purpose
of the group was to find out what the permittees needed to
streamline the process.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about Mr. Graham's written
testimony, which says state primacy will allow a faster, less
formal process. What do you see as faster?
MR. GRAHAM said he is not the expert, and it would be better to
ask Mr. Easton.
3:00:48 PM
MR. EASTON said EPA permitting has formal consultation processes
that apply to it as a federal agency consulting with other
agencies. With state primacy, those formal consultation
processes with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service don't apply to the
state. What applies instead, he said, "is a condition of EPA
approval, typically, that the state will consult with, but the
process is less formal, it's shorter, it's less prescribed."
3:01:53 PM
[HB 153 was held over]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|